It should be noted that SDG&E and other electric utilities are on track to prevent this from happening by imposing a new “grid use” fee which will make it economically unreasonable to install any more rooftop solar panels. It will also punish those of us who have already installed solar power. – Laury Flora, Valley Center

Pension reform effort risky for workers

In response to Jim Cronin (Letters, Nov. 11). Why is there such hate toward City employees? Many office employees are single mothers who try very hard to support their families. Isn’t that better than welfare? Clerical employees’ starting salary is now around $30,000. That is before the various deductions. These employees also pay taxes.

Many people are overjoyed that future firefighters and other city employees will lose their pensions if the initiative is successful. But remember, they also don’t get Social Security. No safety net in their old age. If their 401(k)s tank, who will support them in their old age?

I also think that the Internal Revenue Service will come into the picture and declare this illegal. You have to offer either a pension or Social Security. – Ruth Donovan, Rancho Bernardo

‘Wings of Freedom’ a welcome project

The “Wings of Freedom” harbor sculpture is a great idea (“New landmark for San Diego?” Nov. 9). Many cities have signature icons (Sydney Opera House, Paris’ Eiffel Tower, St. Louis’ Gateway Arch). So why not San Diego? For those few who carp about the view, look around, above it, or admire it for what it is. – John Heaney, San Diego

Is military barred from speaking freely?

In response to “General fired over remarks about Karzai” (Nov. 6): Amendment I of the Bill of Rights states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

Is the military denied the freedom of speech? I know of no law or rule that states military personnel cannot speak freely without being punished. Is there an “unwritten” law prohibiting free speech in our military? – William Trask, Lemon Grove

Businessmen say ‘no’ to Fat City Lofts

Graham Downes’ commentary, “Apartments, manufacturing plant can co-exist” (Dialog, Oct. 30), was a feel-good spin to support the speculative developers behind the proposed residential project across the street from Solar, and misses hitting on the hard facts. This residential project is proposed to be built across the street from Solar’s operations, approximately 100 feet away. Solar’s permits from seven different regulatory agencies would be jeopardized if this project proceeds. These aren’t the “whims” of Solar driving this, but rather state and county permits that dictate how Solar can conduct its business at the site. They are non-negotiable.

It does not matter that the developers or any future tenants of the proposed apartments sign documents agreeing not to challenge Solar’s ongoing operations. It’s not their decision to make. The developers say they want to be good neighbors but sidestep the fact that the apartment units can’t be a neighbor at all without potentially driving Solar out of Downtown San Diego. These speculative residential developers are understandably looking out after their own self-interest to do what they do – build residential units. But there are sites all over the county where such projects can be developed without impacting one of San Diego’s largest employers.